If Obama wins............

if the country had the morality it did in the 50's George Bush would not have been elected a first time let alone a second. But then again, he really wasn't elected was he?

 

...and Bill Clinton would?
Give it up about him not really being elected. He was. You can take your tinfoil hat off any day now :BangHead:

 

I'm curious...when you lie like that, do you feel a pang of conscience, or can you do it with impunity?

 

Amen to Tiny, and the fly guy.

 

You are exactly correct. Like him or don't like him, but he was legally elected.

 

And Obama is elected he will be our first illegal alien as President.:laugh:

 

Wait....BB doesn't like Bush?

[Palin] Say it ain't so, Joe! [/Palin]

 

No, he likes socialists and perhaps even communists which is what we will get aplenty when Obama gets into the oval office. Welcome to the new "Socialist, Nanny State of America."

 

Kinda like what started way back under FDR?

Obama is a typical Daly machine Chicago democrat - nothing but trouble.

 

That is quite a statement. What evidence do you have that Obama is part of the Daly political machine?

There really are some wild statements coming out on the board about Obama.

 

As Richard Petty used to say on his "BC" commercials: "You got tat rite!"

From what I've read of his administration, he & his elite "socialist" compradres managed to keep the disaster of '29 active to the the big WWII;--all manner of govt intervention that stifled any chance of recovery until matters like Pearl Harbor were forced on him.

Looks like more of the same is in store for us come 1/20/09.

Would love to be proven wrong, but---!!

 

I agree - the similarities between 1932 and 2008 are almost eerie.

 

Franklin Roosevelt is one of the best presidents this country has ever had. He is light years ahead of the republican idol, Ronald Reagan, although Reagan was not a bad president.

 

Yep, that's what I believed for many years due to the praise from my parents, grands & relatives etc.

But the more I learned about his social & economic policies, especially as they affected the SOUTH (the south was in the pocket of the democrats then, just as the blacks are now) the more it became apparent that he was pandering to the elite at the expense of the commoner; just like the Ds do now.

However, he gave us the federal soup kitchens (today's welfare) and "make work" (alphabet agencies, mostly) policies that gave the temporary needed relief, but somehow never developed past the "dependent on govt" stage that so many minorities are in today.

The people were grateful for the hand-out, but they never got the hand-up that was truly needed, thanks to restrictive economic policies that the nanny govt "knew best how to create & administer!"

So yes he was a good president - to a point. But like so many "do-gooders", (IMHO), he did some good, but he either had some extremely bad advisers, or he got to believing his own press reports

At any rate, I agree with C4K that the situation is eeriely similar; to the dismay of freedom (political, social, economic) loving Americans.

As to being "light years ahead of the republican idol, Ronald Reagan", well I'll leave that to history, but I have lived thru the Reagan era, and have only read about the "Roosevelt" era - well 'cept for his last 6-7 years; so I do, however, respectfully disagree with this assessment.

 

My mother, a poor Texas farm girl born in 1921, hated him.

With good reason.

 

How FDR's New Deal made the Depression worse

Research from (the University of California at Los Angeles) shows that it should have been over in 1936, but dragged on for seven years because of intervention in the labour market: "In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, (Lee) Ohanian and (Harold) Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law on June 16, 1933. 'President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,' said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. 'So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 per cent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies. High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns, Ohanian said. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces.' By 1939 the US unemployment rate was 17.2 per cent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 per cent but still remarkably high."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24491435-20261,00.html

 

My grandfather, who worked on the railroad in kentucky, loved him. With good reason.

 

The problem with Reagan was he didn't actually do what he said he would do. His big thing was reducing the size of government and the deficit. In reality, he increased both.

 

And, you're not speaking Russian. Of course, admitting that would knock your house of cards down.